Hyperintellectual Analysis
Conces’ Argument In his article Conces argues that the hyperintellectual is different from the hypointellectual and that one of the things that sets them apart is that they are non-partisan. Instead of favoring one side, the hyperintellectual can criticize both sides of the argument because “the tasks of criticism, education, and the rest are conducted in a non-partisan way such that what is objectionable and defensible within each opposing camp is given voice” (Conces 2016.) He argues that the hyperintellectual has no affiliation to any group even if it does appear that way. The shifting of affiliations seen in a hyperintellectual “is evidence that the hyperintellectual is not beholden to any one stakeholder, whether it is a party,
…show more content…
The Hyperintellectual and the Problems that Arise When Seen as Switching Affiliations Although I agree that the hyperintellectual is unique in possessing the quality of being non-partisan, I do not agree that they would help build civil society. This is because I find an issue with the argument that the switching of affiliations are a good quality to have while building civil society in post-conflict places. I think that because of all the chaos and conflict that the people in these places have seen, a hyperintellectual may have a difficult time gaining people’s trust to help build and advance civil society. The switching of affiliations may not be a positive in places like Kosovo and Bosnia where ethnic tensions and divisions are still present. I think that because of the switching of affiliations the hyperintellectual may cause more conflict between people. I think that hyperintellectuals may cause conflict with their switching affiliations because these individuals are probably going to be leaders in helping build a …show more content…
If a leader favors one group the first day, another group the next day, and yet another group the following day then they may not be perceived as the most trustworthy. In a post conflict society like the ones in Kosovo and Bosnia, this hyperintellectual may be helping one group and supporting their cause one day and then turn around and support the cause of those whom the group they were previously helping perceive to be their enemy. If there is already animosity present between these groups and the hyperintellectual intervenes and supports both, it may create a conflict which the hyperintellectual may not have foreseen. If multiple groups perceive the hyperintellectual as a leader and then the hyperintellectual switches their affiliation it can be seen as the hyperintellectual turning its back on them. If the hyperintellectual is not trusted by the many different groups they may come across, then the hyperintellectual cannot build a civil society. They will be running into problems in which the people will question their leadership and although the hyperintellectual may be non-partisan to the people it may not appear that way. Although the idea of someone like a hyperintellectual being non-partisan sounds ideal in a democratic society it is not going to be the same in a society that has
The Hyperintellectual and the Problems that Arise When Seen as Switching Affiliations Although I agree that the hyperintellectual is unique in possessing the quality of being non-partisan, I do not agree that they would help build civil society. This is because I find an issue with the argument that the switching of affiliations are a good quality to have while building civil society in post-conflict places. I think that because of all the chaos and conflict that the people in these places have seen, a hyperintellectual may have a difficult time gaining people’s trust to help build and advance civil society. The switching of affiliations may not be a positive in places like Kosovo and Bosnia where ethnic tensions and divisions are still present. I think that because of the switching of affiliations the hyperintellectual may cause more conflict between people. I think that hyperintellectuals may cause conflict with their switching affiliations because these individuals are probably going to be leaders in helping build a …show more content…
If a leader favors one group the first day, another group the next day, and yet another group the following day then they may not be perceived as the most trustworthy. In a post conflict society like the ones in Kosovo and Bosnia, this hyperintellectual may be helping one group and supporting their cause one day and then turn around and support the cause of those whom the group they were previously helping perceive to be their enemy. If there is already animosity present between these groups and the hyperintellectual intervenes and supports both, it may create a conflict which the hyperintellectual may not have foreseen. If multiple groups perceive the hyperintellectual as a leader and then the hyperintellectual switches their affiliation it can be seen as the hyperintellectual turning its back on them. If the hyperintellectual is not trusted by the many different groups they may come across, then the hyperintellectual cannot build a civil society. They will be running into problems in which the people will question their leadership and although the hyperintellectual may be non-partisan to the people it may not appear that way. Although the idea of someone like a hyperintellectual being non-partisan sounds ideal in a democratic society it is not going to be the same in a society that has